Thursday, 25 October 2007

“It is unrealistic to expect individual nations to make, independently, the sacrifices necessary to conserve energy. International leadership and worldwide cooperation are essential if we expect to protect the world’s energy resources for future generations.” Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

The statement asserts that international leadership in energy conservation is required for the world’s energy resources to be conserved for future generations and that individual nations are unable to do this on their own. I disagree with this statement. Firstly, individual nations have been driven to adopt energy conservation initiatives without international leadership; they will be motivated to do this simply to preserve energy for the benefit of their nation. Furthermore, often international leadership and worldwide cooperation fail to influence the entire world to conserve energy. Therefore, it is not unrealistic for individual nations to make sacrifices to conserve energy, and international leadership and worldwide cooperation is not always required.

Factors other than international leadership or world cooperation have driven individual nations to conserve energy. For example, most nations in Europe develop and use automobiles that are highly energy efficient. This is not the case worldwide. Such nations are motivated to conserve energy purely for the benefit of their own nation as they recognize that the earth’s resources are limited and must be conserved for future generations. Energy efficient transport in such nations is not just limited to automobiles but public transport as well. The governments and society in these individual nations have chosen to find ways to conserve energy, which proves that it is not unrealistic to expect the sacrifices necessary to conserve energy.

Although the goals of international energy conservations and other environmental initiatives are to encourage all nations of the world to conserve the earth’s resources, they often fail in reaching their objectives. For example, the Kyoto treaty was designed to reduce the world’s green house emissions and many countries have signed this treaty. However, the United States refuses to enter the treaty as it believes that following the Kyoto protocol will have negative ramifications on the economy due to loss of jobs and other consequences. In turn, Australia refuses to sign the treaty unless all developed nations are involved, its view being that it will be unable to remain competitive if its energy consumption is limited whilst its competitors will not have such impositions placed on them. McDonalds is an example of a food chain, with franchises in many countries that strives to conserve energy. It has adopted the use of energy saving lights and has tested, only in the United States, 5 advanced energy saving restaurants. Although, this is a great accomplishment for energy conservation, this has not led franchises within other countries to follow suit. These examples show how international leadership is not always able to induce the nations of the world to conserve energy.

In conclusion, it is not unrealistic to expect individual nations to make the sacrifices necessary to conserve energy. Furthermore, international leadership and worldwide cooperation that aims to promote energy conservation does not always succeed in finding support from all nations of the world. Therefore such initiatives cannot be relied upon to persuade individual nations to conserve energy and that it still possible to achieve energy conservation without international leadership.

“Corporations and other businesses should try to eliminate the many ranks and salary grades that classify employees according to their experience and expertise. A ‘flat’ organizational structure is more likely to encourage collegiality and cooperation among employees.” Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.

The speaker here claims that a flat organizational structure is more likely to encourage collegiality among employees. I disagree with the statement. In support of my position, I would like to present following aspects that constitute to an organizational operating.

First, this statement ignores our daily experience in workplace. When there is dispute among coworkers, there should be a clear figure to take authority and to make final decision. If not, disagreement will go unresolved and the congeniality is discouraged.

Second, under a flat system, workers have little enticement, if any, to improve their performance and bear responsibility for their assigned tasks. In fact, a flat system might actually discourage productivity and efficiency because workers are not responsible for the quality or quantity of their work.

In sum, I disagree the opinion that a "flat" organizational structure is more likely to promote collegiality and cooperation among employees because it breaks the common sense about how people work and it discourage the cooperation among employees.

"Corporations and other businesses should try to eliminate the many ranks and salary grades that classify employees according to ther experience and expertise. A 'flat' organizational structure is more likely to encourage collegiality and cooperation among employees"

Management experts all over the world will agree that one of the most discussed issues is how to structure the business so as to encourage collegiality and coorporation among the employees. Employees form the backbone of any organisation and it is only by making them happy can a company derive the maximum output from them.The main question that needs to be answered is what is it that drives a person to give his best. Everyone has motivation levels which are quite different. But organisations that treats its employees so that they feel rewarded for the level of work that they have done over the years and acknowledge the contributions they have made are the ones that get the most out of their employees.Growth is essential to any organisation and for that, it is necessary to move the experienced people up the ladder, give them better pays and benefits for the work they have done so far.This is the reason behind appraisals and promotions. It is not possible to manage and delegate tasks unless there is a clearly defined structure in place. Pay packets form a materialistic way of motivating people to achieve more.Take the case of Wal-Mart. The company has so many levels of positions, starting from the shop assistants to department managers to store managers and so on. Sam Walton made it a point to structure the benefits package in such a way that an employee who stayed on at Wal-Mart ultimately reaped the benefits of loyalty.Much as it would seem that a 'flat' organization would promote cooperation, that is not necessarily true.

Wednesday, 24 October 2007

In some countries, television and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior. In other countries, there is little or no censorship.

In your view, to what extent should government or any other group be able to censor television or radio programs? Explain, giving relevant reasons and/or examples to support your position.

1. The extent to which the broadcast media should be censored for offensive language and behavior involves a conflict between our right of free speech and the duty of the government to protect its citizenry from potential harm. In my view, our societal interest in preventing the harm that exposure to obscenity produces takes precedence over the rights of individuals to broadcast this type of content.

First of all, I believe that exposure to obscene and offensive language and behavior does indeed cause similar behavior on the part of those who are exposed to it. Although we may not have conclusive scientific evidence of a cause-effect relationship, ample anecdotal evidence establishes a significant correlation. Moreover, both common sense and our experiences with children inform us that people tend to mimic the language and behavior they are exposed to.

Secondly, I believe that obscene and offensive behavior is indeed harmful to a society. The harm it produces is, in my view, both palpable and profound. For the individual, it has a debasing impact on vital human relationships; for the society, it promotes a tendency toward immoral and antisocial behavior. Both outcomes, in turn, tear apart the social fabric that holds a society together.

Those who advocate unbridled individual expression might point out that the right of free speech is intrinsic to a democracy and necessary to its survival. Even so, this right is not absolute, nor is it the most critical element. In my assessment, the interests served by restricting obscenity in broadcast media are, on balance, more crucial to the survival of a society. Advocates of free expression might also point out difficulties in defining "obscene" or "offensive" language or behavior. But in my view, however difficult it may be to agree on standards, the effort is worthwhile.

In sum, it is in our best interest as a society for the government to censor broadcast media for obscene and offensive language and behavior. Exposure to such media content tends to harm society and its citizenry in ways that are worth preventing, even in light of the resulting infringement of our right of free expression.

What is this BLOG?

Here I will post the responses to some issue essay questions of GMAT. These are the essays I have written, rather, am writing as I prepare for my GMAT test. Some of the answers may not have been written within the strict time limits. But the answers do reprsent what may be achived in the given 30 mins.